• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where would black Americans be if their ancestors had never been enslaved?

Where would black Americans be if their ancestors had never been enslaved?


  • Total voters
    51
Where would black Americans be if their ancestors had never been enslaved? Assume that all black Americans in the country today were the descendants of people who willingly immigrated to the United States under various conditions (some came b/c of war back home, others wanted a new experiences, etc.).

We obviously cannot answer this question definitively, but I would like people's thoughts on the matter regardless. Responding with "we can never really know", "there's just too many factors to come up with an answer" or similarly defeatist answers is not welcomed in this thread. This is a thought experiment, not a dissertation defense.

So, again, given the narratives you use to explain racial inequality, your perceptions of black Americans and other factors, where do you think that the black population in the United States would be if their ancestors had never been enslaved?* Would they have the same employment, education, crime and other rates as White Americans? Would they be in the same position they are in now?

*Note : I realize that not every black American in the United States is a descendant of slaves. This question addresses the ones that are. I hope that takes care of all the red herrings.

Where would they be? It's hard to say.

Entering as willing immigrants would likely give them at least some leg up as compared to entering as slaves. However, as Fiddy noted, it's unlikely that the society they met on arrival would've been much more tolerant of them than it was historically.

Frankly, that's the whole problem with your scenario from the get go. Such a thing simply never could have happened in real life.

American culture had a hard enough time simply tolerating, let alone integrating, Catholics from slightly different European backgrounds than those of the original Protestant English and German colonists. There is absolutely no way in Hell that a bunch of non-Christian African tribals would have been able to make any headway. Hell! Logistically speaking, they never would've even been able to make it here in the first place.

For that reason, without slavery, the "black community" you seem to be envisioning here almost certainly wouldn't even exist, which renders the entire OP a moot point.

Honestly, a more interesting question here is whether or not the concept of all-inclusive "melting pot whiteness" which is so intrinsic to modern Americans of European descent ever would have developed in the first place without a substantial African population for it to stand in opposition to. It's entirely possible that non-WASP groups like the Irish, Italians, and Jews might've borne the brunt of social scorn in the black community's absence, and never lost the societal stigma of "outsiderhood" which had carried over from European culture without the influence of African Americans on the American cultural experience.
 
Last edited:
The civilisations and cities of the South American natives seem to have suffered similar extinctions. The numbers of peoples there reduced far more than has ever happened in Africa.

But on the subject of slavery, peoples and their civilisations had to be reduced beyond the stone age so as to justify enslavement and treatment of peoples as sub-human. The impact of that history and way of thinking at does not get changed overnight nor even over 3-400 years.



Your post has been largely dealt with by another however I work in the arts and pottery is a family subject (my sister is a professional ceramicist) - potter's wheels and the introduction of coil pottery goes back beyond Christ in Africa.

The 15,000 ton walls of the city of Great Zimbabwe and its counterparts in Mozambique were not built by dragging huge boulders over the difficult terrain nor where they built by martians.

However if you wish to continue in your belief, I am not here to waste further words.

It wasn't "dealt with" it was emoted upon.

And while its nice some people had clay pots n stuff, its still the most primitive continent on earth.
 
When I first read this thread - my first thought was it was designed to show that had slavery never existed, then many descendants of 'black' Americans would still be in Africa. And since most of Africa is far worse off then America, they would be worse off financially. Therefore 'black' Americans descended from slaves are better off then they had of been had slavery never existed.

My answer to that would be - I could care less even if they are now 1,000 times better off then had slavery never existed.

NOTHING justifies slavery...nothing.


And trying to decide if they are better off for it is a ridiculous question that cannot possibly be answered with any degree of accuracy.

It's like asking are the descendants of holocaust survivors better off had there been no holocaust...it's a ridiculous question and impossible to answer and designed - imo - to justify in some way the crimes committed against these people.

Slavery has been a part of human history since before we started keeping track of such things. Our modern, non-slavery having world is an aberration, not the norm.

That's not an attempt to justify slavery, but rather to point out that it's been common and that it's not limited to the United States or to African Americans.

If you or any other white man were to follow your own genes back in time from generation to generation, you would almost assuredly find that you have several ancestors who were slaves at one point in time.
 
It wasn't "dealt with" it was emoted upon.

Sorry, nothing you wrote backed up your position on the subject. You may never have heard of Robert Gayre but you are simply extending what he originally wrote in his writings of several ancient cities in Southern Africa.

You probably never heard of Mapungubwe, Loropeni, Khami - all empires that had trade with China and other centres long before white colonialists arrived in Africa.

And while its nice some people had clay pots n stuff, its still the most primitive continent on earth.

That's true now, however what you wrote previously about language civilisation and technology were uninformed.

I repeat from earlier: many of these cities were reduced to rubble by shelling from Portuguese ships. The portuguese even did the same thing in the 60's and 70's when they were kicked out of Mozambique and Angola by destroying all the infrastructure they had built as colonial masters.

The irony is now that Portuguese citizens are leaving Portugal for employment in Brazil, Mozambique and Angola because Portugal as a power has diminished and shrunk - as all societies eventually do.
 
Sorry, nothing you wrote backed up your position on the subject. You may never have heard of Robert Gayre but you are simply extending what he originally wrote in his writings of several ancient cities in Southern Africa.

You probably never heard of Mapungubwe, Loropeni, Khami - all empires that had trade with China and other centres long before white colonialists arrived in Africa.



That's true now, however what you wrote previously about language civilisation and technology were uninformed.

I repeat from earlier: many of these cities were reduced to rubble by shelling from Portuguese ships. The portuguese even did the same thing in the 60's and 70's when they were kicked out of Mozambique and Angola by destroying all the infrastructure they had built as colonial masters.

The irony is now that Portuguese citizens are leaving Portugal for employment in Brazil, Mozambique and Angola because Portugal as a power has diminished and shrunk - as all societies eventually do.

No, it was primitive then, as it is now. There were few written languages, much of africa STILL does not have written language. And its simply a fact, the wheel was unknown to much of africa (save the horn).

Then you somehow fast forward to the 1960's, as if it was somehow more advanced in the interim. A few stone forts and clay pots dont make a magnificent civilisation. Remarkable for the place and time, maybe-but archaic nevertheless.

And I know about post colonial africa, and all the africans that have died has a result.
 
Impossible to say, because how would the Africans be now if there would never have been colonial forces robbing them blind?

So because the Europeans came along and stole all their money, they were forced to live in grass huts?
 
Where would black Americans be if their ancestors had never been enslaved? Assume that all black Americans in the country today were the descendants of people who willingly immigrated to the United States under various conditions (some came b/c of war back home, others wanted a new experiences, etc.).

We obviously cannot answer this question definitively, but I would like people's thoughts on the matter regardless. Responding with "we can never really know", "there's just too many factors to come up with an answer" or similarly defeatist answers is not welcomed in this thread. This is a thought experiment, not a dissertation defense.

So, again, given the narratives you use to explain racial inequality, your perceptions of black Americans and other factors, where do you think that the black population in the United States would be if their ancestors had never been enslaved?* Would they have the same employment, education, crime and other rates as White Americans? Would they be in the same position they are in now?

*Note : I realize that not every black American in the United States is a descendant of slaves. This question addresses the ones that are. I hope that takes care of all the red herrings.

I answered the wrong question. My fault.

The answer should have been "other", as there would be no one answer fits all or even on average. My first thought had been to the statistics that show that Black immigrants are far more successful than indigenously born on average.
On the other hand it is highly probable that most would have never been born, as the probability of survival and reproduction must have increased dramatically, when they entered the US. After all, as expensive assets they were treated extremely well relative to other populations around the world. Their better habitations, food, clothing etc would have given that group a huge reproductive advantage over the folks back home. So it is improbable, that there could have been the number from immigration presently in the US.
 
So because the Europeans came along and stole all their money, they were forced to live in grass huts?

Yes, but not that was done by Europeans. They enslaved them, they traded them, they kept them stupid and they forced their own religion upon them.
 
Yes, but not that was done by Europeans. They enslaved them, they traded them, they kept them stupid and they forced their own religion upon them.

How much education were they getting in Africa?
 
Yes, but not that was done by Europeans. They enslaved them, they traded them, they kept them stupid and they forced their own religion upon them.

Slavery is still an issue in africa, by africans. They didn't have the wheel in many parts until recently, thats NOT because of european colonialism, which in comparison is fairly recent.
 
Slavery is still an issue in africa, by africans. They didn't have the wheel in many parts until recently, thats NOT because of european colonialism, which in comparison is fairly recent.



You are full of it. Africa is full of wheeled vehicles, which are used all over the continent, and have been for a long time.

I don't know what your problem is, but you should deal with it. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Assume that all black Americans in the country today were the descendants of people who willingly immigrated to the United States under various conditions (some came b/c of war back home, others wanted a new experiences, etc.).
That is not an assumption that could even play out in reality.
Most of those in the US would not even be alive because of the conditions that existed in Africa.

So the fact that they are alive and have a greater ability to advance their self far beyond what one in Africa has, yeah they would have it better even if their ancestors had not been slaves.

The funny thing is that most black Americans that actually immigrated seem to do better than those born here. I wonder why that is? No bs baggage to use as an excuse?


Yes, you stated "those that wound up in the US were already enslaved and were simply relocated to where they commanded a higher price". This is inaccurate. While many Africans were sold to European and American slave traders, most of them were not already enslaved. They were free people who were kidnapped specifically to serve the needs of European and American slave traders.

The majority of kidnapped Africans weren't already slaves in Africa. They were free people who were kidnapped to provide the labour that the European powers required to build their colonies in the Americas.

The transatlantic slave trade: introduction
:doh
It contradicts itself.

They were slaves when sold to the slavers. As it states, they were captives when sold.
It's generally seen as a 'trade' since it revolved around transactions, or a form of exchange, between the African sellers and the European buyers of captives. Indeed, it would have been impossible for European slave traders to venture into Africa and procure African captives without some African involvement – African kingdoms and societies were too strong and well organised. Even when Europeans built forts on the coast of West Africa, this was on land given, or rented, from Africans for this purpose.

Biased article/study is biased. While some were kidnapped by there own African people, saying they were kidnapped in whole is a misnomer for the most part.
Slavery was a part of the following of their cultural norms, and was exasperated by the demand western culture put on it.

So while they may not have been slaves in their own country prior to be taken captive, they were slaves when sold/traded.





NOTHING justifies slavery...nothing.
You can be of that belief all you want. It isn't a bad one to have.

But we are speaking of a time when it was justified by their own culture, and culture of the times.
Under those auspicious, it was justified.

Even though the West has taken on different beliefs, slavery is still accepted and justified in many of those African nations to this day.
 
In Africa in the "good old days" as much as they needed to be misused by Europeans.

Try making some sense, what the hell are you talking about?
 
I disagree. The Africans that have come to America "willingly" are basically traitors to Africa. Why did they move to America? Probably because Africa sucks. And if they have the ability to move to America then we can assume that most of these people come from a background of security and education. The fact that they came to America from Africa tells you that they consider America to be a better place to live than Africa. Most of the people that come from slaves would not have the ability in modern times to move themselves from Africa to America. What percentage of Africans have the ability to just move to America do you think? Less than 1%? It couldnt be many. See for a poor person it is not so easy to just move to another country. Most of these people descended from slaves would be stuck in Africa and their lives would suck because Africa sucks. So the fact that they came to America as slaves and became American is a good thing and has made them better off. Being born in the USA is like winning the lottery. Thanks to slavery these Africans won the lottery.

What you say is beyond ridiculous. This nonsense about Africans that have come to America willingly tend to do better. Why do you think that is? Can a poor and uneducated African easily move to America? Of course not. So what kind of Africans are coming? Of course they will tend to do better than a minority that underachieves in US society.

You honestly think that because some black person had an ancestor that was a slave hundreds of years ago is disadvantaged by that? That is absurd. Is this what is wrong with Irish people? Vikings used to like to get hot white Irish slave girls from Ireland and sell them to wealthy Southern Europeans and Muslims. If they were extra hot they would get a nice collar. Ireland was the best source of hot white sex slaves for a long time. Is this why the Irish underachieve?

edit- It is interesting with the collars. I had the same idea for those guys at Sugardaddy.com. Like expensive collars for high value sugarbabies. And when I read that Vikings did that I kind of felt bad.

edit- But watch a Charlie XCX clip. Soon young sugarbabies will happily wear collars. It will be a symbol of ease and security. Not something to be ashamed of. And the nicer the collar, the better the contract the sugarbaby has. Why should a sugarbaby be ashamed of her blessings and ease?

Lets get drunk on the minibar!

edit- who is to say what is a slave and what is not anyway?



USA! USA! USA!


Why does everything you see connect to pop music somehow? What are you, 14?
 
It's an undeniable fact that the vast majority of the Black people in the USA are the descendents of Blacks who were brought here from Africa as slaves.

No one can change that essential fact. :roll:

All of the woulda,coulda, shoulda in the world will have zero impact on reality.

Really??? You're saying what if questions are completely hypothetical? I had no idea! What a brilliant and unique observation!
 
Such absolute nonsense.

So youre saying there's a genetic and physiological reason that some Black people struggle and its directly connected to Slavery ?

Lol !

Riculous and arbitrary narratives that are based on convincing people that they're perennial victims based on nothing but some idiots opinion have far more to do with the struggles that some Black Americans go through than " Slavery " does.

How did you get genetics from my post? I was talking about cultural influences.
 
No, it was primitive then

That's just your say so and I've shown that to be based on ignorance of facts.

as it is now.

I've agreed this.

There were few written languages, much of africa STILL does not have written language.

Africa is a place where the oral tradition of storytelling is stronger - it's also however where the first written languages were created.

And its simply a fact, the wheel was unknown to much of africa (save the horn).

The relevance is limited. Other technologies existed like smelting in metals etc.

Then you somehow fast forward to the 1960's, as if it was somehow more advanced in the interim. A few stone forts and clay pots dont make a magnificent civilisation. Remarkable for the place and time, maybe-but archaic nevertheless.

And I know about post colonial africa, and all the africans that have died has a result.

This above does nothing for your position neither is it clear what you're even trying to say.
 
How did you get genetics from my post? I was talking about cultural influences.

Clultural influences ? That are derived from Slavery ?

How exactly ?
 
I am talking about the exploitation of Africans by Europeans.

Current exploitation or past exploitation ? Because I'm still trying to figure out how the two are related
 
Well, since the question specifically asked if AFRICANS LIVING IN AMERICA weren't descended from slaves, I'll have to assume "They would still be in Africa" isn't an answer to the question. They would be much better off, for the most part. Every ethnic group that immigrated here willingly tends to do better as the generations go by, except for Africans, the only race taken here against their will. And the Africans that did come here willingly tend to do much better economically than the descendants of slaves.

The obvious conclusion is that they would be doing just as well as anybody else if it wasn't for the method by which their ancestors arrived.



You're operating on the assumption that they or their ancestors would have all immigrated here at some point. There is absolutely no reason to assume this. African Americans currently constitute about 11% of the population last time I checked... how many are actual immigrants FROM Africa, or mostly descended from WILLING immigrants from Africa? From what I've seen, I doubt that number is even as high as 1 in 100. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the vast majority would NOT have immigrated to America from Africa, therefore it is reasonable to assume the vast majority would still be in Africa.... inasumuch as there is ANYTHING resembling reason in this flight of fancy masquerading as a thread.
 
I am talking about the exploitation of Africans by Europeans.

Most Americans are looking at the premise of Africans condition had they not been brought to the US as slaves. I think most Americans would believe that even though slaves for a long time, as a whole they are better off here than in Africa. That's my opinion. I could be wrong about what other Americans think about this, but I think that Africans have not faired so well over there, millions dying of disease, no food, bad water, etc...and dictatorships. Doesn't mean I think slavery is good.
 
Impossible to say, because how would the Africans be now if there would never have been colonial forces robbing them blind?

For the most part I suspect they'd be in similar shape to the Arabs.

Africans who live in the few small pockets of Africa where resources are plentiful would be doing just fine.

The overwhelming majority would be living the way most Arabs do today.

Or the way that people in resource-scare areas live all over the world.

Think about places like Western China, Siberia, and interior Australia.

It's hard for anything more than a small, "elite" minority to rise above a stone age existence when an area's resources can't possibly support such an increase in standard of living.
 
Maybe I missed the post, but I didn't see one single person show either of the two best examples of modern nations that would answer the question in the OP with ease. Take a look at Canada and Great Britain and see how they fare in those two nations.
 
Back
Top Bottom